Re: Advice request--classic games

Quaestor wrote:
Advice is good, in a proper context. Advice can be fun, too. Getting
advice from a master can rev up your emotions, make you feel like you've
really got something for your time/money.

But advice is often seen as a magic bullet that will cure what is
wrong. What is wrong is (likely) that, 1. you don't really enjoy the
games themselves, only the image they or the players evoke, and 2. you
don't enjoy the one thing that really makes for a great master: the huge
number of hours/days/years it takes to acquire not only the knowledge
but the mental habits it takes to be a master of the games.

In short, it may just be that you will have to settle for being
awestruck by the great games and great players, and accept that being
any good at these is just not for you. Find a game that you love to
play whether you are any good or not, and play it.

Wow. That's one of the best pieces of advice I've ever gotten in my
life. Thanks. It certainly gives me some food for thought.

Just offhand, I see a parallel with a pet interest of mine--Keirseyan
temperament theory (http://www.keirsey.com or
http://www.4temperaments.com). It's basically just a means of sorting
people into four personality types, and the main division is between
those who prefer abstract thinking/speaking and those who prefer
concrete thinking/speaking. The latter are in the majority (some 85
percent of people), but I'm in the "abstract" minority. And what I've
observed is that it's the "concrete" people who are generally willing
to do the "practice, practice, practice." For all our good intentions,
we "abstract" types seem to usually balk at that; we're often all talk
and not much action.

Indeed, I've periodically resolved to seriously take up chess ever
since I first learned it, at age twelve (41 years ago). But I've
passed up every opportunity to "play, play, play," starting with
refusing to even think about joining the chess club in high school.
When the home computer came along, I rushed out and bought Chessmaster
2100, thinking I'd finally get to become a decent player. But try as I
might, I just could not make myself stick with it. I'm very
disciplined about most things, and when I start something I almost
always follow through; so this was very unusual for me. But it
happened again and again over the years.

And I guess you're right: I'm eager to learn the principles, to
understand chess (and other games) on an abstract level; but when it
gets right down to the nitty-gritty of playing and practicing, it soon
starts to feel like way too much time & trouble. If I don't prove to
be a "child prodigy," I figure, Why bother?

Another clue is that I've run into people (I'm guessing "concrete"
types) who say they hate games like chess and bridge because so much
has been written about them. They prefer newly designed games (like
Gipf, maybe) which little or nothing has been written about, so that
they can learn by playing rather than by reading. I'm exactly the
opposite! The bigger the body of literature associated with a game,
the more impressed I am with it and the more eager I am to understand
it. And I'd rather learn by reading than by playing. (Example: the
PC game Master of Magic--it was an OK game, but the strategy guide was
superb, and I wanted to get into MoM and play it for the rest of my
life just because of that inspiring and informative guidebook.)

So, "Find a game that you love to play whether you are any good or not,
and play it." Hmm. . . .

That's sound advice alright. But one of the things that keeps me
interested in a game is noticing that I'm improving at it--which
encourages me to set sights on becoming a good player (even if never a
great one). So, I don't think I could possibly pick a game and say to
myself, "This is really fun to play, even though I suck at it." My
ineptitude, if it persisted, would be so discouraging that it'd take
all the fun out of playing.

For me to have fun playing a game, it first has to have a good "feel"
to it. Then I have to start seeing some gradual improvement . And
then, for me to really stick with it, I have to see that (1) there's so
much to the game that I'll never exhaust all its possibilities, and (2)
though I'll probably never be great, there's hope for me to at least
become a pretty good player. Beyond that is one other thing: to my
mind the game has to have the potential to be a sort of metaphor for
life; it has to have meaning beyond being just a mental diversion. The
meaning I'm talking about is the source of the chess and go proverbs
you come across in books--that sort of thing.

Without all those factors, a game is, to me, hardly worth the time it
takes to play it. If it's merely a casual diversion, I might as well
be reading a novel or watching TV. Unless I can get something out of a
game (mental exercise, self-improvement, self-discovery, principles of
success, or whatever), I feel I'm just wasting my time. And I really
don't like wasting time; it's a dwindling commodity and becomes more
precious every year.

There are exceptions, though. Lately I've been playing Lost Cities (a
boxed card game) with my wife--not because LC is such a great game, but
just for the sake of spending an hour or so at the table with my wife
instead of being off by myself. And I've played some HoM&M3 lately
too, just to unabashedly escape real life for a while and indulge in a
participatory fantasy. So, I'll *occasionally* play games for the sake
of diversion or just to socialize. But most of the time I want them to
be something more than that.

And that's why classic games like chess, go, and bridge appeal to me.
Each of those games has attracted a large following of serious players.
It's become a respected art form--a worthy pursuit.

I hate to think I'm just a lifelong dilettante--a sort of Boswell whose
only talent is admiring and praising the talents of others. But maybe
that's the case. It could well be that I'm exactly that and nothing
more.

I'll have to contemplate on that.

--Patrick

.

Relevant Pages

  • BlackJack School BlackJack Training Author Selzer-McKenzie SelMcKenzie
    ... Lesson 1 - Basic Strategy ... mathematical play for that hand. ... The correct basic strategy for a blackjack game depends upon the rules ... Card Practice #2 - Some player hands, like A-7 are difficult to learn. ...
    (de.etc.finanz.misc)
  • Re: "OUR VISUAL BAR IS BASED ON THE 360." Steven Polge regarding UT3
    ... Xbox Live multiplayer mode and furthermore b) played it more than the ... Most people who bought Halo 2 did NOT play the online multiplayer mode ... statistics on how much the offline, untrackable modes of a game like ...
    (alt.games.video.xbox)
  • Re: Charity "Poker" Advice --- or Is This REALLY poker???
    ... So, for live poker, I play the charity games at the local Eagles ... If you play these games right, you are playing from the position of the ... Most are there for fun and few actually understand the game. ... No one who thinks about the pot in the right way can ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: I might have become a pool snob
    ... stroke and get in dead punch you can now go play some serious pool. ... Now the game is won and lost between the 6" of your ears. ... master the mental side of the game. ...
    (rec.sport.billiard)
  • Re: Great Bill Simmons Column -- "The Fix Was In"
    ... It made Miami seem like the most undeserving team ever to end up winning a championship. ... The Mavericks could play small, ... and refs deciding every big game (like in Game ... "New and Improved" NBA will have been defeated, ...
    (alt.sports.basketball.nba.la-lakers)